Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Carl Icahn Pushed for $150 Billion Stock Buyback at Dinner with Apple CEO Tim Cook [Update: Has $2 Billion Invested]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm sure there are some legal issues surrounding these "talks" and his public tweets around them. Apple's stock is up 1.71% as of this writing. Seems like a bit of a "pump" if you ask me.
Buying back an undervalued stock is a good idea. Icahn must believe it will make Apple stronger and more profitable in the future. This thus makes him some more money.
How is it illegal? He's part owner of the company, as such can't he suggest something like this? I'm also a part owner. I could do the same, not that anyone would listen based on my paltry stake.
And how do you think they can manage to do that? Why do you think they [Apple] would want to do that?
Yes, from 0.4% to roughly 0.66%. That's IF Apple goes for the whole $150B that Icahn is suggesting.
----------
You're sure? But maybe can't put your finger on it? Maybe you're not so sure.
Ha, you're right.
What I understand was some rich dude got $150 billion to buy apple stock,
and that's it..
He was right, you don't know what they are talking about.
"We pushed hard..."? "We decided to continue...?" Who else was at this dinner? Or is he just abusing the royal-we? Sounds a tad self-important...
How is a stock buy back not a GOOD idea???It's a win win for everyone. One of the key indicators of a company doing well and believing they'll continue to do well (or better) is buying back stocks.
If anyone says otherwise, it mean's they've got insider information and intend to do insider trading? Can anyone out there say they are more qualified to comment on apple's financial situation than Tim Cook?
Why does Macrumors love using the term "push"? Something is pushing sales here, he pushed for anything there.
Is it native english? Ok, I'm far from being a native speaker, but using push for everything sounds strange and ungrammatical to me.
Is it native english? Ok, I'm far from being a native speaker, but using push for everything sounds strange and ungrammatical to me.
I already corrected you in the last thread about bringing up the Dell transaction and it seems you are being willfully ignorant or just intellectually dishonest. Dell was already going private before Icahn's involvement and he pushed for a higher purchase price so that the common shareholders didn't get fleeced by Michael Dell and Silverlake.
This is not manipulation, this is not insider trading, this is not illegal. Anyone who suggests as such simply does not understand the realities of the market. Tim Cook is free to disregard Icahn's advice but, given Apple's extremely high cash flow AFTER investing in R&D for the future, a larger buyback seems like a pretty good idea.
Actually, not really. The company is just a publicly owned as before. The only difference is that each remaining share of stock represents a larger slice of the company's earnings. The only way a publicly owned company becomes privately owned is if ALL of the shares are purchased by the company or another entity.
The fact that he's publicly announcing his request tells me there is a strategic nature to all of this. Announcing the dinner beforehand, announcing what he requested at the dinner. Don't be naive people. Even Tim Cook is in on this show.
They should buy Icahn's $2B in stock with newly minted bonds and kill three birds with one stone.
Disliked this Carl person at the first sight of his photo. A seemingly goody-goody investor. What the hell is he keeping in his deformed mind? Is this some sort of conspiracy? What a disgusting wretch! Or should I call him a son of what...
I would increase the value of every stockholder's stake by the exact same proportion. Pure and simple.
I don't think Apple WILL go private, but I am pretty sure they would LOVE to be a private company again and do whatever the hell they like and think is best, not having to satisfy, calm down and defend themselves to the stockholder every two days etc. pp.
Not really. It makes sense to do it when the cost of equity is relatively high to cash
----------
Really? Shareholders own the company. If they can't talk, who should?
----------
Yes. This is material non public information, and should not be disseminated by a tweet. At least in the UK, the FCA (equivalent to the SEC) would start an investigation